The following is a response I received from a fellow smasher, I found it to be an insightful exchange as much as we disagree about some of the details. His comments are unformated whereas mine are bolded (not that this means my comments are any bolder!!!). This wasnt the actual dialogue but their email with my added comments as well as an email response sent to them by me.
Hey man, I have been meaning to get back to ya, pardon the delay, just been uber busy with a whole bunch of shit, as far as the whole climate discourse I am not entirely sure how it will play out or what the implications are of its agreements for the global peasantry, although you seem to be onto something! Honestly the climate emails thing wont get much coverage, asides from a few blurbs in the back pages of major periodicals, it likely wont put a dent in the process. They want to take down the USA, any info that fuels their phony debates (i.e. climate change) are a good thing. Its like the god debate, with people channeling all their energy into either defending or challenging something which may not even exist, just another human construct directing peoples attention away from the cabals that be runnin this show. So long as the debate isnt on suppressed tech, nor real environmental issues, or whos in charge they are quite content with anything that keeps people divided.
I have to disagree with you. They don't want to take down the U.S.A., they've (City of London Corporation i.e. THE Bankers = Hedge Funds) have owned the U.S.A. via the District of Columbia for well over 100 years. Nor do I think they want to 'equalize' wealth as is described in the Cop Treaty. To do so would undermine a lot of cozy cash cow day-traders. What they do want to do is create more scarcity, and more flux. By those two means they can acquire more Capital, ensure less risk for themselves, and consolidate power. What it boils down to in the End is that these people (lets call them ‘Them’...awe hell here they are: Kissinger, Volcker, Maurice Strong, Gyllenhammar, Viscount Davignon, Rockefeller, Gianni Agnelli, Cisneros, Jacob and Evelyn Rothschild, Desmarais & Sons, George Shultz, Otto Habsburg, Philip Mountbatten, Brzezinski). These people DO believe they are working for the best interests of humanity, and the world as a whole. Now I am in no way defending them by this next statement, but when you're born into the world these people are, and you operate at the level they do, you often miss what the effects of the decisions you make have on the ground level. Like them I believe the ends do justify the means, but I also believe they're doing it wrong.
I completely disagree with the concept of the ends justifying the means, for the simple fact that there is no known end". We can assume that those in power actually have the end of world peace in mind, and on top of that we can presume that world peace is obtainable through coercive means. The logic of the matter dictates that peace cannot be brought through force; you cannot FORCE people to agree, for at some point inevitably they will resist.
Municipal power, not global power will be key to humanities best interests in the future. These men are working towards a dream, but have failed to acknowledge that that dream is outdated, just as they themselves have become. We no longer require a Saturnian figurehead to guide our actions, or engineer a societal structure geared towards that dream of 'peace', while placating to the lowest common denominator to ensure we must. This will in the end prove a catastrophic failure on their parts. By eliminating ambition, pride, envy, want, and need, you may serve to suppress greed, but you suppress what truly makes us human, and gives us impetus for evolution. Namely conflict. Conflict is necessary, without it we will wither, just as we currently are in the western world. When all happiness is satisfied, when all angst tranquilized, when all pain is neutralized we cease to learn, we become jaded, bored, apathetic, useless.
There is no need to eliminate these emotional traits. We should take pride in others. We should envy the unknown, we should want and need knowledge, but we needn’t apply these to one another. These are TRUE post-human emotional states. In the spirit of Moses(!), though shall not covet... Conflict is as necessary as cooperation. Although countries may go to war, it would not have been possible without first cooperating. Some of the most profound scientific gains pondered and conjured throughout history have been made by individuals who have a passion for the arts, not envy for others. Look what happened to Adolf Hitler. We presume that its competition that gave us this standard of living we enjoy, however it is conflict which has stunted that standard of living. Every luxury we have reaped is owed to cooperation battling the adversity of the free market. And should we feel the need to resist something, should we feel the need to compete, we can compete with the stars, the comets on route to earth; we can compete with the vastness of space. This is life’s only enemy, and at the same time its mother.
Their great legacy is not the utopia they believe will come about through all this strife, not the great balancing, a satiated placating of mans baser instincts, and controlled funnelling of aggression in meaningless wars in order to avert more serious catastrophes. Their great legacy is the Simpsons, fox news, codex alimentarius, and people too blind dumb, numb, and without cum to unfuck themselves.
To presume that they are trying to avert more serious wars by prolonging the less damaging military industrial complex is the consequence of neo-Freudian/ bio-reductionist conditioning. There is no NEED to know a war is going on, or to cheer for a side, there is no need (particularly in light of newly developed virtual experiences) for catharsis to be enacted in this way through war. We are omnivores, not carnivores. Lions may feel an inclination to sink their teeth into something running, we however do not feel this urge.
They don't see that though. They see the goal: World Peace. And for that goal they must first reduce the world’s population by any means necessary (in order to ensure a copacetic standard of living for all i.e. just above enough)... overlooking the fact that by increasing the standard of living in an area it's proven within two generations to begin drastically decreasing the population. Hence how this new 'apology tax' in the Cop treaty could be beneficial, but wasn't put there to this end, and won't function towards that goal.
It is only assumed that they aspire to "world peace", yet any world peace earned through war will be ultimately suppressing and thus not actually peaceful.
Stealing from one poor fuck, and giving it to another poor fuck leaves you with two poorer fucks (which is the goal), except the former has the ability to garner more for both, instead of providing the later with the opportunity to do the same (This oversight might be a slim chance for revolution if people don't simply shudder, bitch, and then turn on the TV.)
That money isn't going to the latter though; it's going to his boss. Who in turn uses it to frantically attempt to buy more IMF bucks to bail his sorry ass out for crooking the original transaction that wound his people into debt to begin with? And if they ever get bailed out? War is always there to make new losers in the race for more scarcity.
They already own it all, they just want everything to be balanced in a controlled flux, organized under one overruling system that pumps the blood necessary for the appendage systems (the flux=multiple currencies, and geo-political-corporate zones/designations/persons). They see this convoluted mess as a necessary illusion for their free-range people farms. Never once thinking (as they're too blinded by the view they have to) that perhaps humanity cannot be balanced, cannot be 'perfect', or that perhaps it already in its own way is, or was before their tampering. That our beauty lies in our frailty, in our small prefrontal lobes, and overly large adrenal glands. That not ONE thing is beautiful, but ALL things. That pain is a teacher. That there is more than ONE truth, way, and that freedom is something that's acknowledged, inherent, not earned, or with-held. Nature will find a way, either by giving them what they want in the form of a few left-over post-planned-catastrophe docile, impotent, lemmings soon to be replaced by a more aggressive, adaptable species, or by humanities baser instincts snapping to the surface and having one of us push that big red button to end it all.
They won a long time ago, officially when they created DC. Since then it's been testing, and restructuring. I'm sorry to be so defeatist, but given how humanity is currently, compared to how it was prior to the first WW, for the most part, aside from the few thousand aberrations like ourselves. It's just a matter of time before it all ends, or it's all Disney. Our enemy Nathan is Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent. Our enemy controls currency. Stopping currency won't stop them at this point. They still have nukes, and nanotechnology. No one's going to drop out, no one's going to say stop, and be heard.
I just wish I wasn't one of the few who wanted to know enough to care, only to find out I shouldn't, and still care after the fact.
We are at a point now where we can control our own evolution (and probably well beyond that as we approach the AI singularity). I do believe that it is our destiny to unify, it seems so intuitive as this is how natural processes arrange themselves. When a system becomes too complex an overarching order manifests to control and regulate it. BUT. The queen ant is ideally in service to the workers, not the other way around. We need a new world order, but not one plagued with greed and corruption, and I don’t believe that a true unified globe could establish itself with these primitive human motivations present, there will always be conflict so long as this is the method we use to bring peace.
I couldn't agree with you more, especially your point about the Queen Ant, that's what I was referring to when I stated Municipal Power, not Global power will be key to our future. To elaborate, if we we're to reverse the pyramid as it stands currently, and have a unified Global Government at the base, and accord it the power to regulate trade etc, but limit its power to the weakest in our structure, following it with regionalized geo-cultural-environmental zones, and then Apexing our pyramid with municipal power we'd have a solid cooperative foundation that ensured communities could choose to regulate themselves how they saw fit within a global family. A resource based economy would be ideal; a defense structure similar to what Switzerland currently possesses would provide optimum self-sufficient security. The problem with this system lies in one municipality deciding "I'm going to nuke this fuck, and take his land because God told me it's mine." Until our species can evolve beyond dogma, we'll never unify. I don't see that happening anytime soon. It's not that by having 'these', or 'those' particular things present, or eliminated that we will overcome our problems as a species. Those are symptoms, and the solutions do not eliminate the problems. The problem is human nature. Let me know if you have a cure for fear, for wilful ignorance, for psychoses. We're a predatory breed, and the majority of us would prefer a comfortable lie, over an uncomfortable truth. Cure that, and you can save this ball of dirt.